BazEkon - The Main Library of the Cracow University of Economics

BazEkon home page

Main menu

Author
Mirzyńska Anna (Krakow University of Economics)
Title
Actors in Environmental Discourse : the Discursive Institutionalism Perspective
Source
Journal of Public Governance, 2023, nr 3 (65), s. 1-15, tab., rys., bibliogr. 54 poz.
Keyword
Analiza dyskursu, Środowisko pracy, Metody badawcze, Organizacje pozarządowe
Discourse analysis, Working environment, Research methods, Non-governmental organisation
Note
JEL Classification: Q5, H8
summ.
Niniejsza praca jest efektem projektu badawczego nr. 2022/45/N/HS5/01874 finansowany przez Narodowe Centrum Nauki
Abstract
Objective: Examined for years in various contexts, the environmental issue does not directly focus on the involvement of actors in the process of discourse institutionalisation, which is achievable through the application of discursive institutionalism. The aim of the study is to characterise actors involved in the environmental discourse studied using the discursive intuitionalism approach: who participates in discourses, with whom they co-participant, and based on which sources of discourse records their presence is studied.
Research Design & Methods: A systematic review examined 185 DI articles from 2004 to 2022, selecting 33 focused on environmental topics for content analysis.
Findings: Seven actor groups in environmental discourse were identified, with government, experts, and NGOs being the most frequent participants. Government predominated in co-occurrence, and discourse records mainly originated from government documents, legislative materials, and reports.
Implications/Recommendations: Further research is recommended to delve into actor profiles, explore the relationship between discourse source selection and actor appearance, and observe trends in DI research methods. Emphasising inclusive representation in environmental discourse is crucial for policymakers.
Contribution/ Value Added: Participation in environmental discourse is dominated by actors with specialised knowledge or resources, responsible for shaping political agenda goals. This results in low representation of unaffiliated citizens, business, and media. (original abstract)
Full text
Show
Bibliography
Show
  1. Alam, Md. M., Murad, Md. W., Noman, A. H. Md., & Ozturk, I. (2016). Relationships among carbon emissions, economic growth, energy consumption and population growth: Testing Environmental Kuznets Curve hypothesis for Brazil, China, India and Indonesia. Ecological Indicators, 70, 466-479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.06.043
  2. Aldunce, P., Beilin, R., Handmer, J., & Howden, M. (2016). Stakeholder participation in building resilience to disasters in a changing climate. Environmental Hazards, 15(1), 58-73. Available at: https://www-1tandfonline-1com-10000083u00d1.hanbg.uek.krakow.pl/doi/abs/10.1080/17477891.2015.1134427 [accessed: 15.11.2023].
  3. Almeida, L. D. A., & Gomes, R. C. (2020). MAIP: Model to identify actors' influence and its effects on the complex environmental policy decision-making process. Environmental Science & Policy, 112, 69-78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.04.016
  4. Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543-571. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum032
  5. Anshelm, J., & Hansson, A. (2011). Climate Change and the Convergence between ENGOs and Business: On the Loss of Utopian Energies. Environmental Values, 20(1), 75-94. https://doi.org/10.3197/096327111X12922350166076
  6. Ball, S. J. (1993). What is Policy? Texts, Trajectories and Toolboxes. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 13(2), 10-17. Available at: https://www.academia.edu/28571059/What_is_Policy_Texts_Trajectories_and_Toolboxes [accessed: 15.12.2023].
  7. Bell, S. (2011). Do We Really Need a New 'Constructivist Institutionalism' to Explain Institutional Change? British Journal of Political Science, 41(4), 883-906. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123411000147
  8. Böhmelt, T. (2013). Civil society lobbying and countries' climate change policies: A matching approach. Climate Policy, 13(6), 698-717. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2013.788870
  9. Buijs, A., Kamphorst, D., Mattijssen, T., van Dam, R., Kuindersma, W., & Bouwma, I. (2022). Policy discourses for reconnecting nature with society: The search for societal engagement in Dutch nature conservation policies. Land Use Policy, 114, 105965. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105965
  10. Campbell, J., Lee. (2004). Institutional Change and Globalization. In Institutional Change and Globalization. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780691216348
  11. Campbell, J., & Pedersen, O. (2015). Knowledge Regimes and Comparative Political Economy. Socio-Economic Review, 13(4), 679-701. https://doi.org/10.1093/ser/mwv004
  12. Carstensen, M. B., & Schmidt, V. A. (2016). Power through, over and in ideas: Conceptualizing ideational power in discursive institutionalism. Journal of European Public Policy, 23(3), 318-337. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2015.1115534
  13. Creutzig, F., Ravindranath, N. H., Berndes, G., Bolwig, S., Bright, R., Cherubini, F., Chum, H., Corbera, E., Delucchi, M., Faaij, A., Fargione, J., Haberl, H., Heath, G., Lucon, O., Plevin, R., Popp, A., Robledo-Abad, C., Rose, S., Smith, P., ..., & Masera, O. (2015). Bioenergy and climate change mitigation: An assessment. GCB Bioenergy, 7(5), 916-944. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12205
  14. Curran, D., Gillanders, R., & Mahmalat, M. (2022). Policymaking, Ideational Power and the Role of the Media. Political Studies Review, 20(2), 250-264. https://doi.org/10.1177/1478929920968348
  15. Dangelico, R. M., & Pujari, D. (2010). Mainstreaming Green Product Innovation: Why and How Companies Integrate Environmental Sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(3), 471-486. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0434-0
  16. Fairbrass, J. (2011). Exploring Corporate Social Responsibility Policy in the European Union: A Discursive Institutionalist Analysis. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 49(5), 949-970. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5965.2010.02162.x
  17. Fricko, O., Havlik, P., Rogelj, J., Klimont, Z., Gusti, M., Johnson, N., Kolp, P., Strubegger, M., Valin, H., Amann, M., Ermolieva, T., Forsell, N., Herrero, M., Heyes, C., Kindermann, G., Krey, V., McCollum, D. L., Obersteiner, M., Pachauri, S., ..., Riahi, K. (2017). The marker quantification of the Shared Socioeconomic Pathway 2: A middle-of-the-road scenario for the 21st century. Global Environmental Change, 42, 251-267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.06.004
  18. Geron, N. A., Martin, D. G., Rogan, J., & Healy, M. (2023). Residents' roles as environmental policy actors using an urban governance framework: A case study of a tree planting program. Cities, 135, 104201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2023.104201
  19. Hajer, M. (2004). Discourse Analysis and the Study of Policy Making. European Political Science, 2, 61-65. https://doi.org/10.1057/eps.2002.49
  20. Hauptmeier, M., & Heery, E. (2014). Ideas at work. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(18), 2473-2488. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2014.936235
  21. Hertwich, E. G., & Peters, G. P. (2009). Carbon Footprint of Nations: A Global, Trade-Linked Analysis. Environmental Science & Technology, 43(16), 6414-6420. https://doi.org/10.1021/es803496a
  22. Hofmann, B. (2023). Persuasive innovators for environmental policy: Green business influence through technology-based arguing. Environmental Politics, 33(1), 45-69. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2023.2178515
  23. Horbach, J., Rammer, C., & Rennings, K. (2012). Determinants of eco-innovations by type of environmental impact-The role of regulatory push/pull, technology push and market pull. Ecological Economics, 78, 112-122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.04.005
  24. Huh, T. (2014). Dynamics and Discourse of Governance for Sustainable Development in South Korea: Convergent or Divergent? Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 16(1), 95-115. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2013.819779
  25. Jørgensen, M., & Phillips, L. (2002). Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method. Sage Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849208871
  26. Kagan, J. A., & Olofsson, K. L. (2023). Advocacy strategies of industry and environmental interest groups in oil and gas policy debates. Policy & Politics, 51(1), 180-202. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557321X16631590760299
  27. Khan, O., Daddi, T., & Iraldo, F. (2020). The role of dynamic capabilities in circular economy implementation and performance of companies. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(6), 3018-3033. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2020
  28. Kopittke, P. M., Menzies, N. W., Wang, P., McKenna, B. A., & Lombi, E. (2019). Soil and the intensi-fication of agriculture for global food security. Environment International, 132, 105078. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2019.105078
  29. Kulawik, T. (2009). Staking the Frame of a Feminist Discursive Institutionalism. Politics & Gender, 5(2), 262-271. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1743923X0900021X
  30. Leifeld, P. (2018). Discourse Network Analysis. Policy Debates As Dynamic Networks. In J. N. Victor, A. H. Montgomery, & M. Lubell (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Political Networks. Oxford University Press.
  31. Liebenguth, J. (2020). Conceptions of Security in Global Environmental Discourses: Exploring the Water-Energy-Food Security Nexus. Critical Studies on Security, 8(3), 189-202. https://doi.org/10.1080/21624887.2020.1754713
  32. Louwerse, T., & Otjes, S. (2018). How Populists Wage Opposition: Parliamentary Opposition Behaviour and Populism in Netherlands: Political Studies, 67(2), 479-495. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032321718774717
  33. Majone, G. (1992). Evidence, Argument, and Persuasion in the Policy Process. Yale University.
  34. Nasiritousi, N., & Grimm, J. (2022). Governing toward decarbonization: The legitimacy of national or-chestration. Environmental Policy and Governance, 32(5), 411-425. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1979
  35. Nylén, E.-J., & Jokinen, A. (2023). Combinatorial perspective on ideas, concepts, and policy change. Environmental Politics, 32(2), 338-361. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2022.2075154
  36. Ostrom, E. (2007). A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(39), 15181-15187. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0702288104
  37. Panagos, P., Van Liedekerke, M., Yigini, Y., & Montanarella, L. (2013). Contaminated Sites in Europe: Review of the Current Situation Based on Data Collected through a European Network. Journal of Environmental and Public Health, 2013, 158764. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/158764
  38. PRISMA-P Group, Moher, D., Shamseer, L., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., Shekelle, P., & Stewart, L. A. (2015). Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Systematic Reviews, 4(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-1
  39. Ran, B., & Qi, H. (2019). The Entangled Twins: Power and Trust in Collaborative Governance. Administration & Society, 51(4), 607-636. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399718801000
  40. Sääksjärvi, S. C. (2020). Positioning the Nordic Countries in European Union Environmental Policy. The Journal of Environment & Development, 29(4), 393-419. https://doi.org/10.1177/1070496520933324
  41. Sarkodie, S. A., & Adams, S. (2018). Renewable energy, nuclear energy, and environmental pollution: Accounting for political institutional quality in South Africa.Science of The Total Environment, 643, 1590-1601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.06.320
  42. Schmidt, V. A. (2002). Does Discourse Matter in the Politics of Welfare State Adjustment? Comparative Political Studies, 35(2), 168-193. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414002035002002
  43. Schmidt, V. A. (2008). Discursive Institutionalism: The Explanatory Power of Ideas and Discourse. Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 303-326. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.060606.135342
  44. Schmidt, V. A. (2010a). Reconciling Ideas and Institutions through Discursive Institutionalism. In D. Béland, R. H. Cox (Eds.), Ideas and Politics in Social Science Research (pp. 47-64). Online edition, Oxford Academic, 1 Jan. 2011. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199736430.003.0003
  45. Schmidt, V. A. (2010b). Taking ideas and discourse seriously: Explaining change through discursive insti-tutionalism as the fourth 'new institutionalism'. European Political Science Review, 2(1), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1017/S175577390999021X
  46. Schmidt, V. A. (2016). Reinterpreting the rules 'by stealth' in times of crisis: A discursive institutionalist analysis of the European Central Bank and the European Commission. West European Politics, 39, 1032-1052. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2016.1186389
  47. Stehfest, E., Bouwman, L., van Vuuren, D. P., den Elzen, M. G. J., Eickhout, B., & Kabat, P. (2009). Climate benefits of changing diet. Climatic Change, 95(1), 83-102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-008-9534-6
  48. Takahashi, B., & Meisner, M. (2012). Environmental Discourses and Discourse Coalitions in the Reconfiguration of Peru's Environmental Governance. Environmental Communication, 6(3), 346-364. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2012.700522
  49. Tellmann, S. M. (2012). The constrained influence of discourses: The case of Norwegian climate policy. Environmental Politics, 21(5), 734-752. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2012.692936
  50. Trein, P., & Maggetti, M. (2023). Denationalization and the recentring of political authority in multilevel governance. European Journal of Political Research, 63(2), 621-643. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12613
  51. Wahlström, N., & Sundberg, D. (2018). Discursive institutionalism: Towards a framework for analysing the relation between policy and curriculum. Journal of Education Policy, 33(1), 163-183. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2017.1344879
  52. Watts, N., Adger, W. N., Agnolucci, P., Blackstock, J., Byass, P., Cai, W., Chaytor, S., Colbourn, T., Collins, M., Cooper, A., Cox, P. M., Depledge, J., Drummond, P., Ekins, P., Galaz, V., Grace, D., Graham, H., Grubb, M., Haines, A., ..., & Costello, A. (2015). Health and climate change: Policy responses to protect public health. The Lancet, 386(10006), 1861-1914. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60854-6
  53. Zhang, D., Fan, F., & Park, S. D. (2019). Network Analysis of Actors and Policy Keywords for Sustainable Environmental Governance: Focusing on Chinese Environmental Policy. Sustainability, 11(15), Article 15. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11154068
  54. Zhang, K., & Wen, Z. (2008). Review and challenges of policies of environmental protection and sustain-able development in China. Journal of Environmental Management, 88(4), 1249-1261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.06.019
Cited by
Show
ISSN
1898-3529
Language
eng
URI / DOI
http://dx.doi.org/10.15678/PG.2023.65.3.01
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Google+ Share on Pinterest Share on LinkedIn Wyślij znajomemu